Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 14:27:35 -0400 From: Bill Fumerola <billf@chimesnet.com> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>, security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Two kinds of advisories? Message-ID: <20000713142735.K4034@jade.chc-chimes.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1000713141936.69079D-100000@fledge.watson.org>; from rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG on Thu, Jul 13, 2000 at 02:21:09PM -0400 References: <4.3.2.7.2.20000713120631.04d53b60@localhost> <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1000713141936.69079D-100000@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jul 13, 2000 at 02:21:09PM -0400, Robert Watson wrote: > That was the whole point of putting "ports" in there in the first place, a > relatively recent change. The advisories are very careful to distinguish > the ports/packages from the base system, and to disclaim responsibility > for them. I think we've done the right thing as it stands. At some > point, people will need to understand that distinction for themselves. Well, it is when we do it right. See the "ports advisory" for the recent ipopts pagefault stuff. -- Bill Fumerola - Network Architect / Computer Horizons Corp - CHIMES e-mail: billf@chimesnet.com / billf@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000713142735.K4034>